75,000 troops needed to secure chemical weapons if Damascus falls

The potential of strategic US strikes in Syria has sparked fears Damascus’ chemical weapons could fall into the wrong hands if the government is toppled. A recent congressional report says 75,000 troops would be needed to safeguard the WMD caches.

The Congressional Research Center (CRS) report, issued just one day before the alleged
August 21 chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb, was
compiled with the aim of “responding to possible scenarios
involving the use, change of hands, or loss of control of Syrian
chemical weapons.”

It states that Syria’s chemical weapon stockpiles, which a French
intelligence report recently estimated at over 1,000 tons, have
been secured by Syrian special forces.

“Due to the urgency of preventing access to these weapons by
unauthorized groups, including terrorists, the United States
government has been preparing for scenarios to secure the weapons
in the event of the Assad regime’s loss of control,” the
document reads

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 7,
2012, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta warned the ouster of
Assad would present a scenario “100 times worse than what we
dealt with in Libya.”

In order to secure the 50 chemical weapon and production sites
spread across Syria, in addition to storage and research
facilities, “The Pentagon has estimated that it would take
over 75,000 troops to neutralize the chemical weapons,” the
document continues, citing a February 2012 CNN report.

Meanwhile, a resolution backing the use of force against
President Bashar Assad's government cleared the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee on a 10-7 vote on Wednesday, although section
3 of the draft ostensibly ruled out US combat operations on the
ground.

The wording of the text, however, could potentially allow for
troops on the ground for the sake of non-offensive operations,
including securing chemical weapons stockpiles and production
facilities.

While the Senate committee initially opted to limit US military
involvement in the country to 90 days with no potential of ground
operations, Republican Senator John McCain joined forces with
Democratic Senator Chris Coons to add a provision calling for
"decisive changes to the present military balance of power on
the ground in Syria."

The Obama administration’s vacillations on Syria were perhaps
best exemplified by Secretary of State John Kerry. Speaking
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday, Kerry
suggested it would be preferable to give the White House the
power to send in ground forces in the event that Syria
“imploded” or if chemical weapons were at risk of being
obtained by extremists.

"I don't want to take off the table an option that might or
might not be available to a president of the United States to
secure our country," he told the committee in the run up to
the vote.

After being told by Senator Bob Corker – the top Republican
on the committee – his sentiments regarding boots on the
ground were not “a very appropriate response,” Kerry
quickly backtracked.

"Let's shut the door now," Kerry said. "The answer is,
whatever prohibition clarifies it to Congress or the American
people, there will not be American boots on the ground with
respect to the civil war."

Having cleared committee, the measure authorizing force in Syria
is expected to reach the Senate floor next week. Senator Rand
Paul, a republican with strong ties to the Tea Party movement,
has threatened a filibuster.